MANU/SC/0436/2014

Equivalent Citation: 2014(4)FLT451, 2014(6)SC ALE536, (2014)6SC C 776

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 36179 of 2013 and I.A. No. 3 in C.A. No. 4440 of
2013
Decided On: 08.05.2014
Appellants: G. Sundarrajan
Vs.
Respondent: Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Vikramajit Sen, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Prashant Bhushan and Pranav Sachdeva. Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Mohan Parasaran, SG, Gourab Banerji, ASG,
Subramonium Prasad, AAG, Sameer Parekh, D.L. Chidananda, Gaurav Sharma, S.K.
Bajwa, Faisal Shervani, Ekansh Mishra, Sahil Tagotra, Advs. for D.S. Mahra, Adv., B.
Balaji and R. Rakesh Sharma, Advs.
JUDGMENT
K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan, J.
1. This Court, while disposing of the case titled G. Sundarrajan v. Union of India
reported in MANU/SC/0466/2013 : (2013) 6 SCC 620, gave 15 directions for due
compliance by AERB, NPCIL, DAE, MoEF, TNPCB, State of Tamil Nadu, etc.
Complaining that those directions had not been complied with, the Petitioner herein
filed Writ Petition No. 19286 of 2013 before the Madras High Court praying for a
declaration that the clearance granted by AERB for 'First Approach to Criticality' (FAC)
of Unit 1 of Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KK NPP) on July 11, 2013 be
declared as null and void. Writ Petition was heard along with few other writ petitions
like WP No. 15829 of 2013 and Writ Petition No. 20161 of 2013 and the same were
disposed of by a common judgment dated 29.7.2013, against which the Petitioner in
Writ Petition No. 19285 of 2013 has come up with this Special Leave Petition. The
Petitioner has also moved I.A. No. 3 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No. 4440 of 2013 for a
direction to the Respondents not to commission the Kudankulam Nuclear Plant till
each of the 15 directions given by this Court in the aforementioned judgment has
been complied with and till they are properly verified by an independent expert
committee appointed by this Court.
2 . When SLP (C) No. 36179 of 2013 came up for hearing, we passed an order on
17.2.2014 directing the Respondents to file their response with regard to steps they
have taken to give effect to the fifteen directions given by this Court. In compliance,
the Respondents have filed their affidavits and status report.
3 . We heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner, Mr.
Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General of India, Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned
senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu, Shri Subramonium Prasad, AAG
and other learned Counsel appearing for the contesting Respondents.

23-07-2019 (Page 1 of 4) www.manupatra.com Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

4. AERB in its affidavit dated 24.3.2014 explained the various steps they have taken
so as to comply with the various directions issued by this Court. With regard to the
concern expressed about the possibility of quality issues with equipment from
specific source, it was also pointed out that additional re-verification was carried out
before FAC. While doing so, it was stated that the quality aspects of the safety related
equipment in KK NPP from that source had not been compromised. AERB Observers
Team re-verified the implementation of QA requirements from initial stage of
manufacturing up to final receipt of the component/equipment at Kudankulam. It was
pointed out, no non-conformance of significance to safety was observed. With regard
to direction No. 5, it was pointed out that SNF can be stored for a minimum period of
7 years within plant in Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) located in Reactor Building. Design of
the same, it was pointed out, has been reviewed from the point of adequacy of
design, surveillance requirements, monitoring provisions to ensure safe storage
considering plant and public safety. For storage beyond 7 years, Away From Reactor
(AFR) facility is planned by NPCIL. NPCIL has submitted the roadmap for design,
construction and completion of AFR facility specifying that the AFR facility would be
operational by May, 2018 after obtaining clearance from AERB. With regard to
direction No. 7, it was pointed out that DGR is to be set up based on national policy
and regulatory review would be carried out as and when design for the same is
evolved. In the meantime, as per the current regulatory practices, AERB would ensure
safe storage of SNF in the spent fuel pool or AFR at Site and ensure that the
transportation is in accordance with the AERB requirements. Detailed response has
been made to rest of the directions in the affidavit filed by AERB.
5. NPCIL has also filed an affidavit along with Annexure A furnishing the status report
with regard to the directions issued by this Court in the above-mentioned judgment.
NPCIL with regard to direction No. 1, pointed out that the quality of equipment
supplied by M/s. Zio-Pololsk such as steam generator, cation and anion filters,
mechanical filters, moisture separators and re-heaters etc. are fully accessible for any
inspection, and none of Zio-Pololsk supplied equipment to KKNPP are subject to
neutron irradiation. Further, it was submitted that to fulfil the directions in para No.
230 of the judgment, report has been filed. With regard to direction No. 7, it was
stated that as the present storage capacity of each Spent Nuclear Fuel Bay (SNF Bay)
is adequate to accommodate discharged fuel for a period of seven years starting from
its first refuelling operation, and hence as such the AFR facilities would only be
required eight years after the First Criticality of the KKNPP Unit-1. Further, it is also
stated that a Task Force for finalisation of design, design basis report to construct
Away From Reactor (AFR) facility for KKNPP Unit 1 & 2 has been constituted by NPCIL
vide office Order dated May 15, 2013 and that the Task Force has prepared a
roadmap for the design and construction of AFR. It was further pointed out that
NPCIL is committed to complete the AFR facility within five years. Reply has also
been given to the rest of the directions as well.
6 . Detailed affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control
Board stating the steps they have taken to comply with the directions. Following the
directions of this Court, it was pointed out, the officials of the Board inspected the
plant on 18.5.2013 along with the members of the Department of the Atomic Energy,
NPCIL, MoEF, etc. to verify the status of compliance of conditions stipulated by the
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in the consent order granted under the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981. It was noticed that the Unit has complied with the conditions
and the consent order issued to the Unit. Further, it was pointed out that the Unit has
installed temperature measuring device both at the sea water intake and marine out
fall facility, and the difference between ambient temperature of the sea and the water
disposed into sea by the Unit is not exceeding 7°C as per the conditions stipulated by

23-07-2019 (Page 2 of 4) www.manupatra.com Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.
7 . The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, submitted a status report with specific
reference to direction Nos. 11 to 15. With regard to direction No. 11, it was pointed
out that the first off-site emergency exercise was conducted on 9.6.2012 at Unit at
Nakkanery village with the support of the concerned Ministries of the Government of
India, Officials of the State Government and the local authorities, etc., and that the
next exercise will be conducted as per the guidelines shortly after the Parliamentary
Elections are over. With regard to direction No. 12, it was pointed out that under the
Neighbourhood Development Programme (NDP) being implemented by the Unit, a
sum of Rs. 200 crores has been earmarked for various projects. It was pointed out
that the projects have been identified and that an Apex Committee has been
constituted to oversee implementation of the NDP. Further, under NDP, a sum of Rs.
45 crores has been sanctioned towards first instalment of the total amount of Rs. 200
crores and from the released funds, work for the installation of Solar Street Light
(200 Nos. ) and Solar Motor Pumps (32 Nos. ) has been completed. Further, it was
also stated that the upgradation of Koodankulam Primary Health Centre to
Government Hospital and improvements to Chettikulam Sub Centre, construction of
new PHC are nearing completion. The construction of new PHC at Ovari is completed
and the improvement and widening of roads (29 roads) around the Unit has been
completed. Further, it was also pointed out that around the Kudankulam surrounding
area, the Government issued an order to construct 5000 houses at the estimate of Rs.
150 crores during the year 2013-2014. With regard to direction No. 13, it was
pointed out that training had been conducted in August, 2011, for the State
Government officials of various departments including revenue, police, medical, fire,
etc. and that a refresher course was organised in June, 2012. Further, it was stated,
schedule for refresher course is being planned in consultation with District
Administration. With regard to direction No. 14 relating to the consent of withdrawal
of criminal cases filed against the agitators, it was pointed out that out of 349 cases,
248 cases had already been withdrawn since in those cases no violence was noticed.
However, with regard to other cases i.e. cases of lay siege through sea (6 cases),
cases of violence against private individuals (40 cases) and cases of violence against
Government officials (55 cases), it was stated, it is not possible to withdraw the
cases as the violations and crimes committed are very serious in nature. The question
whether the rest of the cases be proceeded with or not is for the trial court to decide
on which we express no opinion.
8. After perusing the various affidavits filed by the Respondents, we notice that the
directions given by this Court are being properly addressed by the Respondents and
there is no laxity on the part of the Respondents in not carrying out various
directions of this Court. For full implementation of directions, evidently, it may take
some more time and we are sure that the Respondents would make earnest efforts to
give effect to all the directions of this Court in letter and spirit.
9 . Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner,
submitted that a team headed by a former Chairman of the AERB be constituted to
examine as to whether these directions are being properly implemented or not. We
find it unnecessary to appoint any Committee at this stage since the status report and
the affidavits indicate that the Respondents are taking necessary steps so as to give
effect to various directions, even though some of the directions are yet to be fulfilled,
which naturally would take some more time. At the moment, we find no reason to
give any further directions.
10. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as above, so also the I.A.

23-07-2019 (Page 3 of 4) www.manupatra.com Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

 © Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

23-07-2019 (Page 4 of 4) www.manupatra.com Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur